Fitness-For-Service Assessment Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.

Process & Production Technology Center

for Pressure Equipment in Takuyo K AIDA

Chemical Plants

Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments are quantitative engineering evaluations to demonstrate the structural
integrity of an in-service component that may contain a flaw or damage. FFS assessment has become popular in
the past ten years. One of the reasons why the assessment has become familiar is that some engineering stan-
dards have been published. Recently, the engineering standards have evolved to be more international and com-
prehensive, for example, by the release of a joint American Petroleum Institute (API)/ American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) FFS standard. This paper provides an interpretation of local metal loss assess-
ment procedures based on API/ASME FFS standard and experimental and numerical validation analysis results
of FFS assessment.

This paper is translated from R&D Report, “SUMITOMO KAGAKU”, vol. 2009-I.

Introduction neers (ASME), which is the international design stan-

Sumitomo Chemical possesses a large number of
aging plants that have been in service over 30 years,
centered on facilities that were constructed during the
period of high growth in the 1970s, and some of the
equipment has reached 40 years of age. On the other
hand, we are moving forward with new construction
projects such as the construction of a large chemical
refining and petrochemical plant in Saudi Arabia and
expanding a basic chemical product production plant in
Singapore. Safe, stable continuation of operations is an
important problem for plants that have this kind of var-
ied history and characteristics.
The design and production technology is important
for assuring safety in the pressure equipment at plants.
The engineering standards that have been turned into
performance specifications for design and production
of pressure equipment in Japan are determined by the
four laws relating to pressure vessels (High Pressure
Gas Safety Act, Industrial Health and Safety Act, Elec-
tricity Business Act and Gas Business Act). Provisions
for the design specifications are established by Japan-
ese Industrial Standards (JIS).1) These JIS standards
are compatible with the Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code2) of the American Society of Mechanical Engi-
dard for pressure equipment.
Along with design and production, plant mainte-
nance technology is also important. Maintenance tech-
nology is formed on the three pillars of inspection,
evaluation, and repair and replacement.3) Inspection is
nondestructive inspection technology for detecting
defects arising while the equipment is in service. Evalu-
ation is technology for carrying out evaluations as to
whether the defects detected during inspections affect
the soundness of the equipment from a destructive
mechanical point of view. These evaluations are called
Fitness for Service (FFS). Repair and replacement are
technologies for carrying out repairs and replacements
for the defects determined to affect the health of the
plant as a result of the fitness for service evaluations.
These technologies provide optimal judgment indica-
tors according to the type and history of the equip-
ment, the type of defect and the strength of materials
rather than just carrying out indiscriminate mainte-
nance on each piece of pressure equipment. In the field
of nuclear power, operations are started with the speci-
fications for the maintenance methods for nuclear
power plants already determined by civil standards.4)
In the field of pressure equipment for chemical
plants in Japan, we try to draft and implement stan-

SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I 1

 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants
dards for this plant maintenance technology according
to the use of equipment. Accordingly, the Fitness For
Service Study Group (FFS Study Group) hosted by the
Petroleum Association of Japan and the Japan Petro-
chemical Industry Association which has focused on
API 579-1/ASME FFS-15) (API/ASME FFS-1 in the fol-
lowing), consisting of maintenance standards drafted
jointly with the American Petroleum Institute (API),
and has carried out various other activities. The
authors have participated in this study group and have
been involved in cooperative studies and exchanges of
ideas.
In this article, we are aiming at describing the intro-
duction of FFS technology and will deal with the rela-
tionship between the design criteria and maintenance
criteria for pressure equipment in chemical plants. In
addition, we will give an overview of the background of
the technology for local metal loss assessments, which
are one FFS technology, and introduce the results of
simulations using destructive testing and the finite ele-
ment method (FEM). In addition, we will give an intro-
duction to the status of studies by the FFS Study Group
and discuss the outlook for the future.
Design Criteria and Maintenance Criteria
We need to deal with the relationship with design
criteria to aim at introducing maintenance criteria that
include FFS technology. We can consider “things must
be done while production continues” as a typical con-
cept. However, things always incur damage and deteri-
orate. Maintenance criteria are criteria for having
things for which damage and deterioration are essen-
tially unavoidable in a safe and continuous manner.
Here, we will discuss the relationship between these
two criteria in terms of what kind of concepts assure
safety in the design criteria and maintenance criteria
for pressure equipment. We will explain specific con-
cepts in local metal loss assessments for maintenance
criteria.
1. Design Criteria6)
The design criteria for pressure equipment are divid-
ed into design by rule and design by analysis. With
design by rule, failure modes are represented by plas-
tic collapse and large safety factors are established to
assure safety for all failure modes. The plastic collapse
of pressure equipment is a state where seals yield
across the entire cross-section and deformation pro-
SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I
gresses in a state with no increase in load when a load
is applied. Here, the safety factor S is the factor S when
the reference strength c is a fixed value and the allow-
able stress a is limited as follows.
(Eq. 1)
On the other hand, in design by analysis, all failure
modes that can occur are envisioned and detailed
stress analyses are carried out. Stress limitations and
temperature limitations are implemented, and small-
er safety factors than those for design by rule can be
established. As examples of design by rule and
design by analysis, the normative stress and safety
factors in the no-creep range for JIS B8265, B8266
and B8267, which are Japanese design standards, are
shown in Fig. 1. Moreover, uts is the tensile strength
of the material and ys is the yield stress of the mater-
ial.1), 7), 8)
In the design criteria, the safety factor defined in the
equation for allowable stress is established based on
forecasts for the state of operation and is an empirical
value. A large margin must be taken to assure safety
for all failure modes, but by introducing the uniform
concept of allowable stress, the thickness necessary for
pressure equipment can be determined uniquely for
the design, and it has the merit of reducing the effort
required for analysis.
JIS B8265 (Design by rule)
JIS B8266 (Design by analysis)
JIS B8267 (Design by rule)
Fig. 1 Normative stress and design factor
2. Maintenance Criteria
The role of maintenance criteria is confirming
whether the predictions at the time of design were cor-
rect or not and continuing safe, stable operation. Frac-
ture morphology is specified by collecting actual data,
and safety factors are established. Therefore, the
design criteria that consider all fracture modes are dif-
ferent from the safety factors for the maintenance crite-
ria. Furthermore, the concept of a “safety factor for the
reference strength” itself is reassessed in the mainte-
nance criteria, and a concept of rational safety assur-
2
 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants
ance according to the failure mode, type of damage,
etc. is used.
In local metal loss assessments in API/ASME FFS-1,
the failure mode is specified to be plastic collapse. The
remaining strength factor (RSF) is used as an index for
evaluating safety assurance.
RSF = PDC (Eq. 2)
PUC
Here, PDC is the plastic collapse load for equipment
that has local metal loss, and PUC is the plastic collapse
load for sound equipment. For example, RSF = 0.8
expresses the fact that 80% of the strength remains in
the equipment, or to put it another way, 20% of the
strength has been lost. Safety assessments of equip-
ment are carried out as follows by combining RSF with
a concept of maximum allowable working pressure
(MAWP ).
(1) Determination of tc
The thickness tc used in the assessment is calculated
using either Eq. 3 or Eq. 4. This tc expresses the actual
thickness of sound parts.
tc = tnom – LOSS – FCA (Eq. 3)
tc = trd – FCA (Eq. 4)
Here, tnom is the nominal thickness, LOSS the uni-
form local metal loss from construction to the time of
the assessment, trd the thickness at a position away
from the local loss and FCA presumed future corro-
sion.
(2) Determination of MAWP
MAWP is found using the following equation (when
the equipment is a cylindrical vessel).
MAWP = (Eq. 5)
Ri + 0.6 tc
Here, a is the allowable stress during design, it E
the weld joint efficiency and Ri the inside diameter.
The meaning of MAWP in API/ASME FFS-1 is the
provisional maximum allowable working pressure
assuming equipment that has not undergone local
metal loss.
(3) Determination of MAWPr
The maximum allowable working pressure for equip-
SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I
ment that has undergone local metal loss is defined by
the following equations.
MAWPr = MAWP for RSF ≥ RSFa (Eq. 6)
MAWPr = MAWP RSF for RSF < RSFa (Eq. 7)
RSFa
Here, RSFa is the allowable value for RSF.
Operation of pressure equipment that has under-
gone local metal loss is permitted at a pressure of
MAWP r or less by API/ASME FFS-1. In Eq. 6, the
same maximum allowable working pressure for sound
equipment is set as MAWPr only when RSF ≥ RSFa. In
other words, it is thought that there are no problems
with safety if a strength of RSFa remains even if there
has been local metal loss. Eq. 7 imputes the drop in
strength because of local metal loss to MAWPr by mul-
tiplying the MAWP of equipment that has not under-
gone local metal loss by RSF when RSF < RSFa, and by
eliminating RSFa, the permissible loss of strength is
added to MAWPr. By reducing MAWPr even with the
metal loss for RSF < RSFa, this assures a safety margin
for the plastic collapse load that is the same as RSF =
RSFa
In API/ASME FFS-1, RSFa is a conservative value of
0.9. The significance of this value is a 10% reduction in
strength because of local metal loss is allowable in the
maintenance criteria. The definition of primary local
membrane stress in design criteria is cited as the basis
for the 10% in API/ASME FFS-1. JIS B8266, which is
compatible with ASME design standards, has the fol-
lowing description.
“The allowable value for primary local membrane
stress intensity arising because of the design load is
1.5kSm. Local, here, is the case where primary mem-
brane stress intensity that exceeds 1.1S m does not
remain in a range of 2.5 Rmtm along the meridian line
from an area where the range of primary membrane
stress intensity exceeds 1.1Sm within 1.0 Rt along the
meridian line. Here, Sm is the allowable stress for the
material (design stress intensity), k is an augmenting
factor the allowable stress is multiplied by, R is the nor-
mative radius of the part in question (normal distance
from the neutral plane to the neutral axis), t is the mini-
mum thickness of the part in question, and Rm and tm
are the average of the normative radius and average of
the minimum thickness for the part where the primary
local membrane stress intensity exceeds Sm.”
Therefore, the range where the membrane stress
3

exceeds 10% at the local periphery is ignored in the
design criteria. RSFa = 0.9 is described so as to be com-
patible with design criteria.
Technical Background of Fitness for Service
Assessments for Local Metal Loss 9), 10)
We dealt with the relationship between design crite-
ria and maintenance criteria in the previous section,
and explained safety assessment methods for local
metal loss in the maintenance criteria. One of the engi-
neering technologies required in local metal loss
assessments is the computation of plastic collapse load
for pressure equipment that has undergone local metal
loss. To understand the technical background of this,
we must start thinking in terms of computations of
plastic collapse load for sound pressure equipment.
Here, we will give an explanation presuming a cylindri-
cal vessel for the shape of the equipment and the load
being internal pressure only.
1. Plastic Collapse of a Sound Vessel
We can think of a sound vessel as undergoing plastic
collapse when the stress applied to the seals reaches
the flow stress. Assuming a thin-walled cylinder, the
plastic collapse load PUC is expressed as follows using
the flow stress flow, inside diameter Di and nominal
thickness t, when an inside diameter reference is con-
sidered.
PUC = 2t
Di
In addition, there is the equation below, which was
proposed by Nadai and which assumes a thick-walled
cylinder.
PUC = 2 Ro
3 Ri
Here, Ro is the outside radius, and Ri is the inside
radius. Typically, the yield stress ys and average value
for the tensile strength uts ( ys + uts )/2
the flow stress, but there have been various proposals
to match this with the results of burst tests.
2. Critical Stress of Cylindrical Vessels Having
Cracks Penetrating Axially 11)
The foundation of methods for estimating plastic col-
lapse loads for cylindrical vessels having local metal
loss is based on destructive analysis of pressure cylin-
SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I
Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants
ders having cracks all the way through. The circumfer-
ential stress during breaking due to internal pressure
on cylinders having cracks that pass through axially is
lower than the critical stress for flat plates having
cracks that pass through, and cylinders are weaker
than flat plates.
This is not only because cylinders have circumferen-
tial stress due to the internal pressure, but also
because of their having curvature such that bulging
arises around the crack. Folias analyzed stress intensi-
ty factors for thin-walled cylinders having cracks that
pass through axially and discovered the theoretical
relationship between the breaking stress for cylinders
and the breaking stress for flat plates.12), 13)
(Eq. 10)
1
2
M = 1 + 1.61 C 2 (Eq. 11)
Ri · t
Here, *H is the critical stress of a cylindrical vessel,
* the critical stress of a flat plate, C 1/2 of the length
of the crack in the axial direction, Ri the inside radius
and t the thickness. M is called the bulging factor or
the Folias factor, and it is independent of the proper-
ties of the material. It is determined by the shape of
the cylinder and of the crack. Folias found M by theo-
retical analysis based on stress intensity factor calcula-
tions, but Hahn has proposed basing critical stress
that takes into consideration the plastic range on the
M derived by Folias for applications in materials where
(Eq. 8) the toughness is medium in degree or higher. The
critical stress f for cylinders of high toughness mate-
rials proposed by Hahn is expressed as follows using
flow stress 14)
flow.
(Eq. 12)
(Eq. 9)
2
1
Mt = 1 + 1.61 C 2 (Eq. 13)
Ri · t
are used for 3. Critical Stress of Cylindrical Vessels Having
Surface Cracks
In contrast to the critical stress for cylindrical vessels
having cracks that pass through, the critical stress for
cylindrical vessels having surface cracks is formulated
using Mt in the analysis of cracks that pass through. As
is shown in Fig. 2, there is a rectangular surface crack
in the axial direction, and there are two types for the
critical stress for a pressure cylinder that fractures
4
 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants
under conditions of large-scale yielding, a net section
collapse equation and a local collapse equation.
2c
d made. In addition, handling metal loss which spreads
t
Fig. 2 Longitudinal crack-like flaw model
The critical stress f* is expressed by the following
equation using the flow stress flow.
(Eq. 14)
Ms is a shape compensation factor for surface cracks,
and it is expressed using Mt. The local collapse equa-
tion and net section collapse equation are as follows.15)
– Local collapse equation
1 – 1 (1 – Rt)
Ms = Mt (Eq. 15)
Rt
– Net section collapse equation
Ms = 1 (Eq. 16)
1 In API/ASME FFS-1, the failure mode is specified as
Rt + (1 – Rt)
Mt
d (Eq. 17)
Rt = 1 –
t ing to Ms–1 corresponds to RSF.
Here, Rt is the remaining thickness ratio, d the crack
depth and t the thickness. The main difference
between the two is the behavior of Ms when d → t. For
Ms in the local collapse equation, we have Ms → ∞ for d
→ t, and the critical stress converges at 0. For Ms in the
net section collapse equation, we have Ms → Mt for d
→ t, and the critical stress converges at the breaking
stress value for cracks that pass through. Surface
cracks are thought to pass through the plate thickness
and form a state where the crack passes through when
the local collapse load is reached. When the net section
collapse load is reached, the cylindrical vessel is
thought to break in the axial direction.
4. Extension to Local Metal Loss Assessments
If we consider a metal loss shape such as that in Fig.
3 to be a crack projected longitudinally in a local metal
loss assessment, the calculations for critical stress basi-
cally do not change even if the crack is exchanged for
SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I
metal loss. However, with cracks, we can make the dis-
tinction between [local collapse = passing through of
surface cracks] and [net section collapse = axial failure
of the vessel], but with metal loss, there is no concept
of “progress of the crack,” so this distinction cannot be
out in three dimensions with the unaltered equation
expressing the critical stress for cylindrical vessels
with cracks does not always yield results close to reali-
ty. Therefore, we must find a factor corresponding to
Ms in Eq. 14 to express the failure of cylindrical vessels
with metal loss.
Fig. 3 Projection of Local Thin Area in cylindrical
component
plastic collapse, and the factor known as RSF is defined
as a plastic collapse load ratio. The factor correspond-
In API/ASME FFS-1, a total of 32 types of evaluation
equations are cited for determining the equation for
calculating the RSF used in the standards, and investi-
gations were made into a suitable method. The details
of the investigation carried out for API/ASME FFS-1
are as follows.16)
(1) Burst tests and collection of the results of FEM
analysis
Nearly 1000 burst tests accumulated by API/ASME
and the results of FEM analysis were collected, and
vessel shape, shape of metal loss and critical stress
were put in order.
(2) Calculation of failure pressure
RSF was calculated by each of the 32 evaluation
methods for each of the tests and analytical conditions
(vessel shape and metal loss shape) that were both put
in order in (1). Failure pressure is found using the fol-
lowing equation.
5
 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants

Pf = Pfo × RSF (Eq. 18) implemented by Jannele et al.

Here, Pfo is the failure pressure of an undamaged 5. Evaluations of Bending Load (Axial Stress)
component. For API/ASME FFS-1, an equation pro- Up to this point we have given an overview of evalua-
posed by Svensson is used. tion methods for equipment with internal pressure. On

n
the other hand, it is also necessary to evaluate equip-
PUC = e 0.25 · ln Ro (Eq. 19)
n n + 0.227 Ri ment with bending loads. Applications to equipment
undergoing bending loads are impossible with Level 1
Here, n is the work hardening coefficient of the assessments in API/ASME FFS-1 Part 5. In Level 2
material. assessments, an evaluation formula using the modulus
of section based on material dynamics is given for
(3) Comparison of burst test and FEM analysis results assessment of the effects of bending loads. This is
with failure pressure found from the formula for assessed using the von Mises equivalent stress calcu-
calculating RSF lated from the axial stress due to circumferential stress
We compared the tests and analytical results collect- caused by internal pressure, internal pressure, working
ed in (1) and the failure pressure calculated in (2). load and seismic load.
As a result of investigating the equation that best In this article, we are omitting the details, but it is
matched the burst test results and analytical results possible to carry out assessments of seismic load by
from the 32 methods, the following equation was used carrying out API/ASME FFS-1 assessments related to
for RSF (API/ASME FFS-1 Part 5 Level 1 Cylindrical bending load.
Vessels).
Burst Tests on Pipes with Metal Loss and FEM
RSF = Rt (Eq. 20)
1 Simulations17), 18)
1– (1 – Rt)
Mt
In the previous section, we explained the technical
Here, we have : background of local metal loss assessments using
API/ASME FFS-1 following the order of plastic col-
t – FCA
Rt = mm (Eq. 21) lapse loads for sound cylindrical vessels. In API/ASME
tc
FFS-1, the formulae for computations were deep term
and from distracted testing and the results of FEM sim-
(Eq. 22)
ulations for extending crack assessments to local metal
loss assessments. What is important in aiming to intro-
duce Fitness-For-Service assessment technology to
Japan can be thought of as being an accumulation of
burst tests and FEM simulation results domestically
1.285S (Eq. 23)
Di tc and verification of the safety of international standards.
In addition, these results will be effective for develop-
Rt : Remaining thickness ratio ing damage assessment methods in the future. In this
tmm : Minimum measured thickness article, we will introduce the burst test carried out by
FCA : Future corrosion allowance the authors to verify the safety margin in API/ASME
s : Length of metal loss in axial direction FFS-1. In addition, we will also introduce the results of
tc : Sound thickness at location away from part with critical stress calculations using FEM simulations.
metal loss
Di : Inside diameter of vessel 1. Verifications Based on Burst Tests in Pipes
with Metal Loss
Eq. 20 has the same shape as the inverse of the local RSF calculations in API/ASME FFS-1 do not involve
collapse equation Ms for surface cracks. However, Mt the length of metal loss in the circumferential direc-
was derived by finding the results of a last of elastoplas- tion. In other words, the critical stress for vessels
ticity analysis using the finite element method (FEM) where the width (length of metal loss in the circumfer-

SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I 6

 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants

ential direction) of the metal loss is narrow and the

width of the metal loss is wide is the same if the length
of the metal loss in the axial direction and the smallest
measured thickness are the same. However, if the pres-
sure in these cylindrical vessels with metal loss is
added, it is presumed that the metal losses with narrow
widths can be estimated from the deformation due to
the effects of plastic constraints by the sound thick part
of the periphery. Safety is verified using burst tests as
opposed to evaluations where plastic collapse loads for
metal loss with a narrow width and metal loss with a
Fig. 5 Outer view of specimens
wide width are the same.

(1) Test conditions

For specimens, we used eight carbon steel pipes for
machine structural use, JIS G3445STKM13A (outside
diameter 150 mm, thickness 10 mm, length 1 m), and
each of the test samples was locally turned on a lathe
into one location in the middle of the outside surface to
give it a part with metal loss (see Fig. 4). The details of
the dimensions of the parts with metal loss are given in
Table 1. Test piece No. 1 and test piece No. 5 are
shown in Fig. 5 as examples of the outside appearance
of the specimens before the tests.
(2) Test Results
Test piece No. 1 and No. 5 are shown in Fig. 6 as
examples of the outside appearance after the tests.
The test results are given in Table 2. Almost no dif-
ference was found in failure pressure, and the aver-
age failure pressure for the eight specimens was
36.0MPa.

L2

7.5mm 7.5mm

2.5mm t(=10mm)
Specimen No.1 Specimen No.5

Fig. 6 Outer view of specimens after tests

Carbon steel pipe Local metal loss

L2
Table 2 Test results

L1 Specimens No. Burst pressure (MPa)

1 35.8
Fig. 4 Size of metal loss
2 40.2
3 34.9
4 36.3
Table 1 Size of local metal loss 5 32.1
6 37.6
Specimens No. L1 (mm) L2 (mm) 7 36.1
8 35.2
1 75 26 20
2 75 26 20
3 75 26 20
4 75 75 60
These results agree with the concept in API/ASME
5 75 75 60
6 75 75 60 FFS-1, in which the length of the metal loss in the cir-
7 75 15 Groove cumferential direction does not contribute to the calcu-
8 75 15 Groove lation of RSF.

SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I 7

 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants

(3) Comparison of MAWPr for pipes with metal loss metal loss in the axial direction and the minimum mea-
and failure pressure sured thickness are the same, and even if the metal
Next, we will evaluate MAWPr, which is the maxi- loss in the circumferential direction changes, it can be
mum working pressure allowed by API/ASME FFS-1 said to be a sufficient safety margin.
for these pipes with metal loss, and confirm the safety The cause of there being a large safety margin is that
margin by comparing this with the results of burst a sufficient design margin for the allowable stress was
tests. In this article the safety margin SM is defined as established as shown in Fig. 1. In addition, we can
in the following equation. assume that the safety margin increased because of the
following factors.
FPM (Eq. 24)
SM =
MAWPr
– Difference between minimum specified tensile
Here, FPM is failure load due to the pressure and strength and actual tensile strength
bending load. The minimum specified tensile strength is 370MPa,
First of all, we calculate MAWP r based on which is the same for STKM13A and STPT370. The
API/ASME FFS-1 from the conditions of the pipes with tensile strength value for the carbon steel pipes used as
metal loss in the specimens. However, since STKM13A specimens in this article was 451MPa. Therefore, the
is carbon steel pipe for machine structural use, the larger the difference between the minimum specified
allowable stress in the design criteria is not shown. value and the actual value is, the greater the safety
Therefore, we decided to use the allowable stress margin.
(based on JIS B 8265) at normal temperatures for car-
bon steel pipes for high temperature pipes, JIS – Equation for calculating RSF
G3456STPT370, for which the specified minimum ten- If the RSF calculation results shown by Eq. 28 are
sile strength is the same. There, the allowable stress smaller than the actual remaining strength factor, the
for STPT370 at normal temperatures is 92MPa. MAWP method according to API.ASME FFS-1 estimates on
is found as follows from Eq. 5. Here, the weld joint effi- the conservative side. When the burst tests were con-
ciency is set to 1, the thickness tc at the location away ducted on pipes without metal loss using the same
from the metal loss to 10 mm and FCA to 0 mm. materials and same heat materials as the samples in
this article, the failure pressure was 63.1MPa. If we
92 × 1 × 10 (Eq. 25) think of the ratio of the failure pressure for the pipes
MAWP = = 12.96MPa
65 + 0.6 × 10
with metal loss and the pipes without metal loss, RSF =
Next, , Mt and RSF are calculated as follows from 36.0 / 63.1 = 0.57. These calculation results for RSF
Eq. 23, Eq. 22 and Eq. 20 from the dimensions of the were RSF = 0.41, and we can assume that the safety
pipes with metal loss. margin increased since it is a value that is more conser-
vative than the actual one.
(Eq. 26)
2. Calculation of failure pressure using FEM sim-
Mt = 1.94 (Eq. 27) ulations
The failure pressure found with burst tests is calcu-
RSF = 0.41 (Eq. 28) lated using FEM simulations. Failure pressure simula-
tions with good precision will be effective in the future
Since RSF < 0.9, MAWPr for the pipes with metal loss for accumulation of safety data.
is as follows. Fracture criteria must be given to calculate failure
pressure. In this article, we used the criteria proposed
RSF 0.41
MAWPr = MAWP = 12.96 × = 5.90 (Eq. 29) by Miyazaki.
RSFa 0.9

While the MAWPr for the pipes with metal loss is (1) Analytical conditions
5.90MPa, the failure pressure according to the burst ANSYS 11.0 was used for the analysis solver. Analy-
tests was an average of 36.0MPa, and the safety margin sis was carried out on three cases, a pipe with a nar-
was 6.1. In the test conditions this time, the length of row metal loss ( = 20°) for Case 1, a pipe with a wide

SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I 8

 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants

metal loss ( = 60°) for Case 2 and a pipe with a 1200 Tensile test result
Poly-linear approximation

True stress (MPa)

groove shaped metal loss for Case 3. The length of 1000

the metal loss in the axial direction was 75 mm for all 800

600
of them, and the ligament thickness was 2.5 mm. Case
400
1 corresponds to burst test pieces No. 1 through 3,
200
Case 2 to test pieces No. 4 through 6 and Case 3 to
0
test pieces No. 7 through 8. As an example of the ana- 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

lytical model, Fig. 7 shows the finite element model True Strain (%)

for Case 1. Fig. 8 Stress-strain curve for FEA

(2) Strain calculation results

The stress and strain were calculated at various loca-
tions when the analytical conditions shown in (1) were
increased. In the burst tests for Case 1 and Case 2,
strain was measured by the gain in strain, and the test
results and simulation results were compared. The
Fig. 7
results of comparing the burst tests and the simula-
tions for the changes in strain at the center of the metal
loss are shown in Fig. 9. The two agree well, and we
Test pieces were collected from parts of the pipes can assume that the simulation results were able to
for which water pressure burst tests were carried out reproduce the actual behavior. The cause of this is
for the material characteristics, and the true stress- thought to be that the material characteristics for the
true strain relationship was obtained by carrying out true stress-true strain relationship given to the simula-
tensile tests. In addition, the true fracture stress uf tion agree well with the actual ones.
and true fracture ductility uf were as follows assum-
ing fixed conditions for plastic volume and with the
same aperture during fracture and aperture after
0.07
fracture. Specimen No.1
0.06
FEA result
0.05
(Eq. 30)
Strain

0.04

0.03
(n)
Here, f is the nominal stress during fracture. 0.02

0.02
Ao = ln 100 (Eq. 31) 0
A 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Applied pressre (MPa)
Since the nominal stress during fracture of the pipe
was 315.4MPa and the aperture was 68%, the true frac- 0.07

0.06 Specimen No.5

ture stress uf and true fracture ductility uf were FEA result
0.05
Strain

0.04
uf = and 986MPa, uf = 1.14.
0.03

0.02
A poly-linear approximation was carried out from a
0.02
true stress-true strain diagram obtained from the nomi-
0
nal stress-nominal strain diagram and the true break- 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

ing stress uf and true fracture ductility uf obtained Applied pressre (MPa)

from the aperture after the tensile tests, and the materi- Fig. 9 Relationship between applied pressure and
al model shown in Fig. 8 was obtained. strain of specimens

SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I 9

 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants

(3) Fracture criteria es, and fracture is thought to occur when it crosses the
The true fracture ductility in a multiaxial stress field line of the true fracture ductility. Table 3 gives the
is lower than the true fracture ductility obtained from results of finding the breaking stress in each case from
tensile tests having monoaxial stress field conditions. Fig. 10.
For the criteria for multiaxial stress fields, Miyazaki et
al. have extended the isostatic pressure breaking crite-
0.6 Equivalent strain (Case1)
ria of Weiss, in which breaking arose when the isostat-
True fracture ductility (Case1)
0.5
ic pressure reached a critical static water pressure.19)
Miyazaki et al. have said that the following equation 0.4

Strain
arises for the true fracture ductility mf and the true 0.3

fracture stress msf in multiaxial strain conditions when 0.2

the stress and strain relationship is expressed by a
0.1
Ramberg-Osgood approximation.
0
0 10 20 30 40

(Eq. 32) Applied pressure (MPa)

0.6
Equivalent strain (Case2)
o = y : yield stress, o = o /E, E: modulus of elas- True fracture ductility (Case2)
0.5
ticity, a: material constant, n: material constant
0.4
In addition, the true fracture ductility mf in a multi-
Strain 0.3
axial strain field is formulated as follows.
0.2

0.1
(Eq. 33)
0
0 10 20 30 40
Applied pressure (MPa)

Here, and m are as follows. 0.6 Equivalent strain (Case3)

True fracture ductility (Case3)
0.5

(Eq. 34) 0.4

Strain

0.3

(Eq. 35) 0.2

0.1

= 2/ 1, = 3/ 1 : 1 first principal stress, 2 0

0 10 20 30 40
second principal stress, 3 third principal stress
Applied pressure (MPa)
Here, the true fracture ductility in Eq. 33 was used as
Fig. 10 Estimation for burst pressure for cylindri-
the failure condition. Specifically, and m were calcu-
cal vessel
lated from the stress distribution for each pressure
found by the FEM analysis and the true fracture ductili-
ty found. A comparison was made with the correspond- Table 3 Simulation results
ing strain at that location, and a determination on
breaking was made. In addition, in terms of the materi- Case No. Burst pressure (MPa)

al constants a and n, a = 16.9 and n = 3.1 from the mate- 1 36.8

2 35.2
rial characteristics in Fig. 8.
3 28.8

(4) Results of failure pressure simulations

The relationship between the true fracture ductility Comparing this with the results of the burst tests
and the equivalent strain at the location where stress (average of six pipes being 36.0MPa), the results of the
and maximum strain occur is shown in Fig. 10. When Case 1 and Case 2 simulations match the actual tests
the stress increases the equivalent strain also increas- well. For the groove shaped metal loss in Case 3, the

SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I 10

 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants
simulation results were 28.8MPa, which were results
more on the conservative side than the actual test
results. The cause of this is thought to be the poly-lin-
ear approximation being affected by possibilities differ-
ent from the actual ones and the processing precision
of the groove shaped metal loss in the sample material
(dimensions and surface state).
As in the above, a result on the conservative side of
the actual appeared for the groove shaped metal loss,
but it showed that it is possible on the whole to calcu-
late the actual breaking stress by FEM simulations.
Moving forward, we can expect that safety data can be
accumulated by this same method.
Investigations by the Petroleum Association
of Japan and the Japan Petrochemical Indus-
try Association
The Fitness for Service Study Group of the Petrole-
um Association of Japan and the Japan Petrochemical
Industry Association is carrying out surveys and inves-
tigations on fitness for service assessments mainly for
local metal loss.9), 20), 21) This study group was estab-
lished in 1999 and carried out the investigations of the
details of the draft version of API RP579, which was the
predecessor of API/ASME FFS-1. The beginning of
activities was reflecting Japanese opinions in the first
version of API RP579.
After that, an official committee member was sent for
API TG579, and this member has participated in the
deliberations on proposed revisions and voting ballots
since 2002. This contributed to the issuing of
API/ASMEFFS-1 which is the joint standard of the
ASME and API being brought up in this article. Here,
we will introduce some of the results of investigations
being carried out by this study group.
1. Results of Burst Tests in Japan and Compari-
son with Assessment Results for API/ASME
FFS-122)
To move forward in the verification of API/ASME
FFS-1, results where the test load is not only internal
pressure but also includes bending loads are neces-
sary. The FFS study group has collected breaking test
data on cylindrical vessels to which internal pressure
loads, bending loads and composite inside pressure
and bending loads have been applied and has investi-
gated the safety margins of API/ASME FFS-1. The
results are shown in Fig. 11. Here, the total for the
SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I
number of data is 49, and (1) in the figure is High Pres-
sure Gas Safety Institute of Japan data from 1998, (2)
High Pressure Gas Safety Institute of Japan data from
1990, (3) Osaka High Pressure Gas Safety Institute
data from 1992, (4) JFE engineering test data and (5)
data from 2006 the Ibaraki Prefecture High Pressure
Gas Facility Maintenance Criteria Formulation Pro-
gram.
8
1
API 579 Margin for Pressure:
7
2
6 3
4
P_LL/P_API(–)
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
API 579 Margin for Bending Moment : M_LL/M_API(–)
Fig. 11 Safety margin of API/ASME FFS-1 Part 5
The horizontal axis is the safety margin for the bend-
ing moment, and the vertical axis is the safety margin
for the internal pressure. It can be seen that for the
bending moment as well as for the internal pressure,
the safety margin versus the burst tests is 2 or greater.
This shows that a sufficient safety margin may be main-
tained in various load conditions.
2. Collection of Test Data on the High Tempera-
ture Range in Carbon Steel
The difference between a minimum specified
strength and actual tensile strength have been cited as
having an effect on the safety margin. The FFS Study
Group has carried out verifications of the tensile
strength for typical carbon steels. In addition, since
burst tests are difficult to carry out at high tempera-
tures, tensile tests were carried out at various tempera-
tures from normal temperatures to 300°C for the
purpose of confirming safety up to approximately
300°C. Part of the results is shown in Fig. 12 and
Table 4.
Fig. 12 is an investigation of the stress-strain curves
from normal temperatures to 300°C for SM490A. It
shows that there is sufficient margin in all temperature
ranges for a minimum specified tensile strength of
490MPa. In addition, the behavior of the stress-strain
11
 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants

700 for safety assurance of pressure equipment in domestic

600 plants, and the detailed specifications are to be trans-
500 ferred to consumer specifications.
Stress (MPa)

400 While freedom for inspections will increase, the

Room temp
300 100°C responsibility of businesses like us to carry out our
200 200°C own inspections will increase. Within this, it is neces-
100 300°C
sary to have cooperation among industry, academia
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 and government and obtain a consensus for incorporat-
Strain ing new technology and international standards and
500 establishing self-imposed inspections that are compati-
450
ble with societal requirements (safety, economy and
400
350 internationalism). The role of those of us in industry
Stress (MPa)

300 Room temp

250
may be thought of as getting a grasp on and under-
100°C
200 standing the trends in international standards and con-
150 200°C
tinuously accumulating safety data. In particular, with
100 300°C
50 the globalization of economic activities, it is extremely
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 important for international standards and domestic
Strain standards to agree. In this article, we have given an
Fig. 12 Results of tensile test of SM490A overview of the content of API/ASME FFS-1 local
metal loss assessments and shown safety data. The
application of these evaluation methods to pressure
Table 4 Results of tensile test of SM490A equipment under the Gas Business Act has already
been approved. We are also aiming at introduction of
Room temp
Tensile strength 561MPa self-imposed inspection methods based on internation-
Yield stress 355MPa al standards in other pressure equipment, and we will
100°C continue to get an understanding of the technology and
Tensile strength 525MPa
accumulate data.
Yield stress 343MPa
200°C
Tensile strength 597MPa Acknowledgments
Yield stress 337MPa
300°C During this research we received a large amount of
Tensile strength 621MPa
guidance and advice from the members and technical
Yield stress (at 0.2%) 300MPa
advisers of the Fitness for Service Study Group of the
Petroleum Association of Japan and the Japan Petro-
curve in the neighborhood of yield stress is substantial- chemical Industry Association. We would like to take
ly the same behavior from normal temperatures to this opportunity to express our deep gratitude to them.
200°C, and even though no clear yield stress is exhibit-
ed at 300°C, there is a blue brittleness effect, and the References
tensile strength is the greatest at 300°C.
From the results of the tensile tests as well, the actu- 1) JIS B8265 Construction of pressure vessel –Gener-
al tensile strength is higher than the minimum speci- al principles, 2003.
fied tensile strength, so even with RSF = 0.9, which is 2) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section
the basic concept of API/ASMEFFS-1, it can be VIII Division 1, 2007.
assumed that there is a sufficient safety margin. 3) H. Kobayashi, Journal of the Japanese Society for
Non-Destructive Inspection, 52(5), 229(2003).
Conclusion 4) JSME S NA1 Code for Nuclear Power Generation
Facilities –Rules on Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear
Recently, the safety inspections in the High Pressure Power Plants–, 2004.
Gas Safety Act have moved to specific safety guidelines 5) API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Fitness-For-Service, 2007.

SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I 12

 Fitness-For-Service Assessment for Pressure Equipment in Chemical Plants
6) H. Kobayashi, Journal of the Society of Materials
Science, Japan, 56(5), 483(2007).
7) JIS B8266 Alternative standard for construction of
pressure vessels, 2003.
8) JIS B8267 Construction of pressure vessel, 2008.
9) I. Kozima, T. Kikuchi, T. Tahara, Journal of High
Pressure Institute of Japan, 44(4), 18(2006).
10) T. Kaida, Proceedings of JHPI autumn conference
2006, 28(2006).
11) S. Machida, “Ensei Hakai Rikigaku (Ductile Frac-
ture Mechanics)”, Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun Ltd.
(1984), p.189.
12) E.S. Folias, International Journal of Fracture
Mechanics, 1, 20(1965).
13) E.S. Folias, International Journal of Pressure Vessels
and Piping, 76, 803(1999).
Takuyo K AIDA
Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.
Process & Production Technology Center
SUMITOMO KAGAKU 2009-I
14) G.T. Hahn, M. Sarrate, A.R. Rosenfield, Internation-
al Journal of Fracture Mechanics, 5(3), 187(1969).
15) G.G. Chell, TPRD/L/MT0237/M84, ADISC,
ADISC, 1984.
16) J.L. Janelle, D.A. Osage, S.J. Burkhart, WRC Bul-
letin 505, 2005.
17) T. Kaida, ASME PVP2008-61806, 2008.
18) T. Kaida, Proceedings of JHPI autumn conference
2007, 44(2007).
19) K. Miyazaki, A. Nebu, S. Kanno, M. Ishiwata, K.
Hasegawa, Journal of High Pressure Institute of
Japan, 40(2), 62(2002).
20) Y. Ideguchi, Y. Ishizaki, T. Tahara, Journal of High
Pressure Institute of Japan, 44(5), 25(2006).
21) A. Ohno, Y. Uno, T. Tahara, Journal of High Pres-
sure Institute of Japan, 44(6), 27(2006).
22) A. Ohno, T. Tahara, ASME PVP2008-61845, 2008.
PROFILE
13